Journalist Steve Paikin of public broadcaster TV Ontario described the brutal beating of the Guardian reporter.
“As I was escorted away from the demonstration, I saw two officers hold a journalist. The journalist identified himself as working for ‘the Guardian.’ He talked too much and pissed the police off. Two officers held him a third punched him in the stomach. Totally unnecessary. The man collapsed. Then the third officer drove his elbow into the man’s back. No cameras recorded the assault. And it was an assault.”
Paikin noted how middle class, peaceful demonstrators were being attacked and arrested by police, while the anarchists who provided them with the pretext to do so were nowhere to be seen.
“The police just started arresting people. I stress, this was a peaceful, middle class, diverse crowd. No anarchists. Literally more than 100 officers with guns pointing at the crowd. Rubber bullets and smoke bombs ready to be fired. Rubber bullets fired.”
“I have lived in Toronto for 32 years. Have never seen a day like this. Shame on the vandals and shame on those that ordered peaceful protesters attacked and arrested,” added Paikin

Problem-Reaction-Solution:

Q: Why did Scotland Yard ALLOW the the rioters to get somewhat out of control and cause widespread damage and fires, causing more damage?

A: To generate a huge public outcry and gain parliamentary/Downing Street authorization and public support (via the media) for the use of water cannons, rubber bullets (baton rounds) tear gas, tasers and other heavy duty means of "crowd control". Local street violence in the UK is quite common, especially after high profile sporting events (such as soccer matches); the authorities deal with it quickly but media coverage is minimal, because its a regular weekend occurrence, a part of the national landscape, so to speak. However, when rioting has a political edge, which is a much rarer type of unrest... the authorities' responses' and strategy is a wholly different ballgame, and the manipulation of public opinion appears to be the chief goal.

The totalitarian-like measures which they claim are "to control and dissuade future riots" is not a logical or honest statement. This appeared to be a "designer riot", and lots of people who had no clue what they were "rioting about" joined in, just for the hell of it. The psychology of rioting is well understood by the authorities and it appears that they were taking advantage of how easy it is to draw young and impressionable people in, thus to justify severe countermeasures and further erosion of civil rights, and to equate legitimate dissent with criminality, and in which the public are increasingly unable to make the distinction between "dissent" and "criminality".

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Don't really care about MJs point, but this post is a bit disturbing. You believe that people deserve to be the focus of vigilante justice?

It'll help prevent more rioting and looting. That's the current symptom of a disease that's manifested because these degenerates think that only they matter. When they see that citizens will fight back and they've got much more to face than sometimes spending a few weeks in jail, they'll think twice.

Think about it. Muslims might cut off some hands, maybe some knee-capping in other communities, these things will send a message, that you don't get away with it.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Q: Why did Scotland Yard ALLOW the the rioters to get somewhat out of control and cause widespread damage and fires, causing more damage?

A: To generate a huge public outcry and gain parliamentary/Downing Street authorization and public support (via the media) for the use of water cannons, rubber bullets (baton rounds) tear gas, tasers and other heavy duty means of "crowd control". Local street violence in the UK is quite common, especially after high profile sporting events (such as soccer matches); the authorities deal with it quickly but media coverage is minimal, because its a regular weekend occurrence, a part of the national landscape, so to speak. However, when rioting has a political edge, which is a much rarer type of unrest... the authorities' responses' and strategy is a wholly different ballgame, and the manipulation of public opinion appears to be the chief goal.

The totalitarian-like measures which they claim are "to control and dissuade future riots" is not a logical or honest statement. This appeared to be a "designer riot", and lots of people who had no clue what they were "rioting about" joined in, just for the hell of it. The psychology of rioting is well understood by the authorities and it appears that they were taking advantage of how easy it is to draw young and impressionable people in, thus to justify severe countermeasures and further erosion of civil rights, and to equate legitimate dissent with criminality, and in which the public are increasingly unable to make the distinction between "dissent" and "criminality".

I wish the police had gone in real hard, but I think the thinking is that that can make things worse. As we've seen though things did get worse, exactly because the police kept the gloves on.

I think typically you can tell when it's a peaceful protest, whether it be from the Tea Party or the NAACP and the police should respect that. If there's no fire you don't need to put it out.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

They don't like it when they're shown that something like these riots are basically their own worldview boiled down to its most base form.

So the only tactic is to ignore and sidestep the question.

Yeah, except our worldview is one where the government treats the jaw of the guy who's been beaten, provides shelter for the guy who's home has been burnt down and helps the widow of the guy who has been murdered.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Yeah, except our worldview is one where the government treats the jaw of the guy who's been beaten, provides shelter for the guy who's home has been burnt down and helps the widow of the guy who has been murdered.

And you'll loot others in order to do all these good deeds and threaten violence if others don't hand over their property in order for you to do these good deeds.

Yeah, except our worldview is one where the government treats the jaw of the guy who's been beaten, provides shelter for the guy who's home has been burnt down and helps the widow of the guy who has been murdered.

The government cannot do any of those things without first threatening or committing violence against others in order to take their money and property.

Q: Why did Scotland Yard ALLOW the the rioters to get somewhat out of control and cause widespread damage and fires, causing more damage?

A: To generate a huge public outcry and gain parliamentary/Downing Street authorization and public support (via the media) for the use of water cannons, rubber bullets (baton rounds) tear gas, tasers and other heavy duty means of "crowd control". Local street violence in the UK is quite common, especially after high profile sporting events (such as soccer matches); the authorities deal with it quickly but media coverage is minimal, because its a regular weekend occurrence, a part of the national landscape, so to speak. However, when rioting has a political edge, which is a much rarer type of unrest... the authorities' responses' and strategy is a wholly different ballgame, and the manipulation of public opinion appears to be the chief goal.

The totalitarian-like measures which they claim are "to control and dissuade future riots" is not a logical or honest statement. This appeared to be a "designer riot", and lots of people who had no clue what they were "rioting about" joined in, just for the hell of it. The psychology of rioting is well understood by the authorities and it appears that they were taking advantage of how easy it is to draw young and impressionable people in, thus to justify severe countermeasures and further erosion of civil rights, and to equate legitimate dissent with criminality, and in which the public are increasingly unable to make the distinction between "dissent" and "criminality".

This is not what happened in any way. The police were doing their fucking hardest to stop the riots. The looters flowed like rats, reassembling in emergent ways wherever they found a centre of gravity.

The police did not use a load of force it's true. Don't forget they are unarmed in the UK. They were badly prepared, badly lead and scared to use significant force. But they were doing their level best and I have total sympathy with them.

It's so easy to criticize looters who ripped off some electronics and tennis shoes... they are common criminals, and should get dealt with severely by the courts.

However.. put it into perspective: We seem to be blissfully unaware of the biggest looting spree in human history - the wholesale rape, pillage and ransacking, of TRILLIONS of dollars, from the taxpayers of western nations by the international banksters and corporate Wall Street insider elites, in 2008 and 2009, and continuing to this day... these guys do it just because they can, and can threaten politicians. It's just a big game in the fevered, sociopathic minds of those scum, and the losers are the ordinary taxpayers. These super-criminals are above and beyond the reach of the law... they do golf and dinner parties with favored lawmakers.

In the light of the real mega-crime wave of the millennium, the sense of proportion and priority appears wildly out of whack.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

People who loot, plunder and steal and use violence or the threat of violence to advance their goals and desire are degenerate scumbags and should be dealt with using swift and direct violence to stop their depredations?

Is that correct?

Yes. As little violence as possible. But yes.

You can think they are scum at the same time you admit the fucking obvious fact there is a socioeconomic context.

It's so easy to criticize looters who ripped off some electronics and tennis shoes... they are common criminals, and should get dealt with severely by the courts.

However.. put it into perspective: We seem to be blissfully unaware of the biggest looting spree in human history - the wholesale rape, pillage and ransacking, of TRILLIONS of dollars, from the taxpayers of western nations by the international banksters and corporate Wall Street insider elites, in 2008 and 2009, and continuing to this day... these guys do it just because they can, and can threaten politicians. It's just a big game in the fevered, sociopathic minds of those scum, and the losers are the ordinary taxpayers. These super-criminals are above and beyond the reach of the law... they do golf and dinner parties with favored lawmakers.

In the light of the real mega-crime wave of the millennium, the sense of proportion and priority appears wildly out of whack.

Some people may chastise you but I think the financial meltdown of 2008 was indeed a mega crime-wave. When you say crime wave one might think of Batman clearing out Gotham City but this is a kind of crime on an entirely new and unfathomable level.

Somewhere like Denmark or Sweden is more We The People then you ever experience in the US. We do it as a community (at our best). We consent to build this society. It takes taxes, among other things.

Oh, and social mobility and QoL are higher then in the US (yeah yeah, rather die then be a Slave to a state blah blah blah).

You're looking at a postcard of the past and speaking about it there Harald. Of course having some some small, homogeneous, monoculture attempt to deal with their societal concerns is easier than having a massive, heterogeneous, multicultural society. Europe hasn't lived in our world because they've self-segregated or murdered each other for centuries and now have bankrupted themselves purchasing this half century or so of peace. Now the snapshot is fading and they ware watching cars and buildings burn while realizing they are pandas, to lazy to even screw and assure a future. The mishmash of those on the lower tier of society, native folks who have only ever lived life on the dole and the massive waves of immigrants, would rather watch Geordie Shore than ask god to save their queen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harald II

The kids were not being political in their minds or actions.

There are socioeconomic reasons for this.

Civil rights have nothing to do with it, as you realise, but you are totally missing the point as to why this happened.

No one is missing it. Don't be an ass. They are pointing right at it and noting the flaw. Look at Hands quote right below you. These folks while not living the high life are supposed to be free from basic wants and they are torching place because the premise that you can purchase the peace hasn't proven to be true. The youth and the immigrants are seeing that same photograph you are staring at and noting above. That is not their lives. They are burning cars and shops because the socialist model that purchased the peace is broken and has run out of other people's money to take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Yeah, except our worldview is one where the government treats the jaw of the guy who's been beaten, provides shelter for the guy who's home has been burnt down and helps the widow of the guy who has been murdered.

If they are so free from want, they why are they murdering, looting and burning in the first place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

It's so easy to criticize looters who ripped off some electronics and tennis shoes... they are common criminals, and should get dealt with severely by the courts.

However.. put it into perspective: We seem to be blissfully unaware of the biggest looting spree in human history - the wholesale rape, pillage and ransacking, of TRILLIONS of dollars, from the taxpayers of western nations by the international banksters and corporate Wall Street insider elites, in 2008 and 2009, and continuing to this day... these guys do it just because they can, and can threaten politicians. It's just a big game in the fevered, sociopathic minds of those scum, and the losers are the ordinary taxpayers. These super-criminals are above and beyond the reach of the law... they do golf and dinner parties with favored lawmakers.

In the light of the real mega-crime wave of the millennium, the sense of proportion and priority appears wildly out of whack.

People are aware of it. They just ignore it because the party that helps the crony-capitalist purchases racial indulgences from the race hustlers and then points the finger at those who would stop it and screams that they are racists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harald II

Only if you think taxes are impossible to raise without consent rather than coercion. This is in your fucking head, not human nature.

Nice platitude but last I looked, he was the one living in the former colony that fled due to not wanting to keep a fucking king. Sure it is a bit different now that in the past but the point is that America was founded because the tax policy in the past consisted of a king declaring gimme. Our nation was founded on avoiding tax coercion and that wasn't in our heads.

You're looking at a postcard of the past and speaking about it there Harald. Of course having some some small, homogeneous, monoculture attempt to deal with their societal concerns is easier than having a massive, heterogeneous, multicultural society. Europe hasn't lived in our world because they've self-segregated or murdered each other for centuries and now have bankrupted themselves purchasing this half century or so of peace. Now the snapshot is fading and they ware watching cars and buildings burn while realizing they are pandas, to lazy to even screw and assure a future. The mishmash of those on the lower tier of society, native folks who have only ever lived life on the dole and the massive waves of immigrants, would rather watch Geordie Shore than ask god to save their queen.

No one is missing it. Don't be an ass. They are pointing right at it and noting the flaw. Look at Hands quote right below you. These folks while not living the high life are supposed to be free from basic wants and they are torching place because the premise that you can purchase the peace hasn't proven to be true. The youth and the immigrants are seeing that same photograph you are staring at and noting above. That is not their lives. They are burning cars and shops because the socialist model that purchased the peace is broken and has run out of other people's money to take.

If they are so free from want, they why are they murdering, looting and burning in the first place?

People are aware of it. They just ignore it because the party that helps the crony-capitalist purchases racial indulgences from the race hustlers and then points the finger at those who would stop it and screams that they are racists.

Nice platitude but last I looked, he was the one living in the former colony that fled due to not wanting to keep a fucking king. Sure it is a bit different now that in the past but the point is that America was founded because the tax policy in the past consisted of a king declaring gimme. Our nation was founded on avoiding tax coercion and that wasn't in our heads.

I obviously hit a nerve. Let me deal with your weird EU rant first and then the central point.

Look, there is nothing the US can tell Europe about violence, racial tension, sickness of people, proportional and absolute levels of poverty, quality of life, happiness of population or (my absolute favourite, thanks for bringing it up) debt.

Because the US scores worse. Worse than Europe. On every one.

We even get twice as many days holidays.

So stick your superiour model, because it isn't working for you.

I'll focus again on the debt issue because if we "bought" our peace then we should be more in debt than the US, shouldn't we? But, uh, we're not.

Anyway, they're not rioting because of that craziness you wrote, but because the neo-liberal model has obviously become something that will never work for them, ever, they will never advance, they have nothing to aspire to, so, fuck it, fuck you, let's get some shoes.

Our nation was never founded on the idea that it wasn't the duty of citizens to pay taxes to fund the government. It was always 'no taxation without representation', not, 'no taxation'. You're revising history, as usual.

I obviously hit a nerve. Let me deal with your weird EU rant first and then the central point.

Look, there is nothing the US can tell Europe about violence, racial tension, sickness of people, proportional and absolute levels of poverty, quality of life, happiness of population or (my absolute favourite, thanks for bringing it up) debt.

Because the US scores worse. Worse than Europe. On every one.

We even get twice as many days holidays.

So stick your superiour model, because it isn't working for you.

Again, it scores better in your snapshot of the past. However we are talking about the present. Also you aren't comparing apples and oranges. The U.S. scores racial tension by race as color. Europe scores racial tension by race as ethnicity. They are waking up the former though not by choice. Patting yourself on the back because the Italians haven't killed the French this year isn't much of an applause line.

Quote:

I'll focus again on the debt issue because if we "bought" our peace then we should be more in debt than the US, shouldn't we? But, uh, we're not.

Anyway, they're not rioting because of that craziness you wrote, but because the neo-liberal model has obviously become something that will never work for them, ever, they will never advance, they have nothing to aspire to, so, fuck it, fuck you, let's get some shoes.

Have you gone mad? What is to aspire to? The whole point of redistribution is that those who got ahead did so via nothing more than accidental luck so better to share the wealth. How can you also be so contradictory. You just declared that there was plenty of social mobility, declared it was better than they U.S. and now you declare there is zero chance of social mobility. Sort it out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Our nation was never founded on the idea that it wasn't the duty of citizens to pay taxes to fund the government. It was always 'no taxation without representation', not, 'no taxation'. You're revising history, as usual.

Stop setting up strawmen. The claim was that taxation via coercion was in someone's head. Taxation without representation is exactly that, coercion. So it wasn't in someone's head. It is in our history and fighting against it is one of our founding ideas.

They don't like it when they're shown that something like these riots are basically their own worldview boiled down to its most base form.

BullSHIT.

Rioters are the ultimate libertarians.

"I will do what I want. My will and my desire are the only things that matter. No one has the right to stop me exercising my desire. Certainly not the police, those servants of the state, funded by taxes. It isn't 'who will let me?' It's 'who will stop me?'"

Society doesn't benefit. Only the individual, which is the centre of the civic universe. We pay to clean up the shit after this exercise in selfishness.

I'm surprised you aren't applauding the rioters. Your philosophy and their philosophy is practically identical.

"I will do what I want. My will and my desire are the only things that matter. No one has the right to stop me exercising my desire. Certainly not the police, those servants of the state, funded by taxes. It isn't 'who will let me?' It's 'who will stop me?'"

Society doesn't benefit. Only the individual, which is the centre of the civic universe. We pay to clean up the shit after this exercise in selfishness.

I'm surprised you aren't applauding the rioters. Your philosophy and their philosophy is practically identical.

MJ's and looters view- Take and give nothing back. I have no responsibility for the welfare of others. Sue me if you don't like it, you know AFTER the fact, if you can afford the lawyer that is, especially given my corporate lawyers know how to drag things out so your attempts are just going to harm you financially. And yes we will raise our prices to cover any lawyer fees to keep you people down.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

You're looking at a postcard of the past and speaking about it there Harald. Of course having some some small, homogeneous, monoculture attempt to deal with their societal concerns is easier than having a massive, heterogeneous, multicultural society. Europe hasn't lived in our world because they've self-segregated or murdered each other for centuries and now have bankrupted themselves purchasing this half century or so of peace. Now the snapshot is fading and they ware watching cars and buildings burn while realizing they are pandas, to lazy to even screw and assure a future. The mishmash of those on the lower tier of society, native folks who have only ever lived life on the dole and the massive waves of immigrants, would rather watch Geordie Shore than ask god to save their queen.

No one is missing it. Don't be an ass. They are pointing right at it and noting the flaw. Look at Hands quote right below you. These folks while not living the high life are supposed to be free from basic wants and they are torching place because the premise that you can purchase the peace hasn't proven to be true. The youth and the immigrants are seeing that same photograph you are staring at and noting above. That is not their lives. They are burning cars and shops because the socialist model that purchased the peace is broken and has run out of other people's money to take.

If they are so free from want, they why are they murdering, looting and burning in the first place?

People are aware of it. They just ignore it because the party that helps the crony-capitalist purchases racial indulgences from the race hustlers and then points the finger at those who would stop it and screams that they are racists.

Nice platitude but last I looked, he was the one living in the former colony that fled due to not wanting to keep a fucking king. Sure it is a bit different now that in the past but the point is that America was founded because the tax policy in the past consisted of a king declaring gimme. Our nation was founded on avoiding tax coercion and that wasn't in our heads.

The government provides for the least well off, some of that money benefits businesses because they can pay less in wages, go figure, businesses do well out of this too.

There's a sense of things going backwards (because they are) with the Tea Party Super Lite government here, the Tories, for social mobility, that's adding fuel to the sense of being separate from the rest of society. The Tories always make it harder for the average guy and below to advance, not unlike the repubs in the US.

And here's a history lesson-

"Britain did not expect the colonies to contribute to the interest or the retirement of debt incurred during its wars, but they did expect a portion of the expenses for colonial defense to be paid by the Americans. Estimating the expenses of defending the continental colonies and the British West Indies to be approximately £200,000 annually, the British goal after the end of this war was that the colonies would be taxed for £78,000 of this amount. The colonists objected chiefly on the grounds not that the taxes were high (they were low) but that they had no representation in the Parliament. Parliament insisted it had the right to levy any tax without colonial approval, to demonstrate that it had authority over the colonies."
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

The revolution was also stirred because the big corporations at the time were benefitting from charters whilst the smaller businesses were locked out of the lucrative trades, especially and notably the tea trade. The US went on to prevent these corporations from monopolizing trade and that was critical for the people, not the kings whoever they may be, to have the American Dream. But only 50 years later that started to change and the US started falling back into corporations having too much power. Now look where we are. The real patriots aren't the Tea Party and the Libertarians they're the one's who fight for the people to get a fair shake.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Only if you think taxes are impossible to raise without consent rather than coercion.

Actually I do believe that taxes by their nature are collected by force. If you're claiming that where you live everyone is consenting, voluntarily to pay all the taxes, then they really aren't taxes in any real sense.

Given that the libertarian view is one that respects private property, opposes theft, coercion and initiatory violence. That's an odd claim you've made.

.

MJ1970, you liberal pussy. You Marxist. You facist. You socialist.

These are true libertarians. They do what they want. Keep your stupid rules to yourself. Anyone who lays a hand on these people to govern them is a tyrant and a usurper and an enemy.

They don't go to your adolescent blogs where the 'laws' of libertarianism are written down.

They are the logical, inescable outcome of your adolescent cult of selfishness. These are your people, fighting the repressive agents of the state. People like me pay taxes to clean up after them, and I'm proud to, because I remember what civic responsibility IS.

"Theresa May confirms that nobody has so far been charged with rioting. That's because that's a "very specific offence", she says."
~ guardian

Yeah, let's charge these vile degenerate clowns with attempting petty theft so we don't have to pay to lock them up. Somethings terribly wrong with our Tory thinking.

"UK [sic; English] riots: police unhappy at light sentences for looters
Police officers are frustrated about the light sentences handed down by the courts to some of the people who took part in the recent riots, according to a Met commander.
~ Telegraph

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

...I just remembered that you think that I and people like I want to impose eugenics on society and then of course realised also that there's no point in reasoning with you whatsoever, so fuck it. You hate me so much on principle, for no reason, you can't even hear me. Fuck it.

Rothbard - often referred to as the father of modern libertarianism - wrote extensively on the concept of "society". Here's a little blurb:

Quote:

...what, it may be asked, of the "rights of society"? Don't they supersede the rights of the mere individual? The libertarian, however, is an individualist; he believes that one of the prime errors in social theory is to treat "society" as if it were an actually existing entity. "Society" is sometimes treated as a superior or quasi-divine figure with overriding "rights" of its own; at other times as an existing evil which can be blamed for all the ills of the world. The individualist holds that only individuals exist, think, feel, choose, and act; and that "society" is not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individuals. Treating society as a thing that chooses and acts, then, serves to obscure the real forces at work. If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others, then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

If an individual does not have the right to impose his will upon you by threat of violence or actual violence, why does a group of individuals have the right to do so?

I started calling people dumbass and adolescent? I started accusing people of whining? I started calling people pussies?

Really?

I started with a simple question which you've side-stepped, possibly because the point hits too close to a realistic comparison to your dearly held worldview which views the rich as greedy and evil, views other people (the rich especially) as your property, other people's (the rich's especially) property as a resource to be mined...by force if necessary.

It is rather strange reasoning you have. In your world, those who disrespect private property, steal and use violence to get what they want are the same as those who respect private property, don't steal, oppose stealing and the use of violence. In your world those fight for fiscal sanity and restraint are to be blamed when an outside party declares that fiscal insanity and unrestrained spending are called risky and dangerous. In your world view the person who asks the question "started it" and the one who calls names and spits at the screen and keyboard did not.

Rothbard - often referred to as the father of modern libertarianism - wrote extensively on the concept of "society". Here's a little blurb:

If an individual does not have the right to impose his will upon you by threat of violence or actual violence, why does a group of individuals have the right to do so?

Who the fuck is Rothbard?

We are trying to break in to this television shop. We don't have time for this non-aggression thingy. We are free individuals, and anyone who lays a hand on us is the enemy. Particularly those "public servants" paid for by taxes: THE POLICE, instrument of the state.